ANyone see/hear this ... LL threat to evict 46(?) tenants BBC Breakfast.

[spyguy]

2 hours ago, Si1 said:

So she's not actually going to evict 46 families then? In fact it isn't her call at all, is her bank's.

48 families. 46 tenants and her and the business partners...

Edited October 28, 2018 by spyguy

[North London Rent Girl]

16 hours ago, Burbujista said:

Actually... take a look at this:

 

She says she bougth 73 houses in one single year. They have a deal with the council to get sure tenants... why doesn’t the council do it themselves?

Well found. That show is so chock-full of bs, "reinvigourated parking area", what a load of ar se. Turd-polishing to mood music.

On the substance, 73 pwoberdees in a year? I wonder how many of her there are out there, am thinking a lot, all leveraged up to the eyeballs, hurray!

[spyguy]

22 minutes ago, North London Rent Girl said:

Well found. That show is so chock-full of bs, "reinvigourated parking area", what a load of ar se. Turd-polishing to mood music.

On the substance, 73 pwoberdees in a year? I wonder how many of her there are out there, am thinking a lot, all leveraged up to the eyeballs, hurray!

You cant add value to houses in northern dumping zones.

Just put bars on the ground floor windows.

[mrtickle]

6 hours ago, spyguy said:

48 families. 46 tenants and her and the business partners...

 

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

You cant add value to houses in northern dumping zones.

Just put bars on the ground floor windows.

Another zinger!

 

[spyguy]

On 28/10/2018 at 08:36, Captain Kirk said:

I think it says this for 2017 ...

Properties valued at £4.5m        (£4.7m  in 2016)
£150K in the bank                        (£190    in 2016)
£50K owed to them
£4m of loans                                 (£4.2      in 2016)
Profit £115K                                  (£180K  in 2016)
£8K owed by them                       (£4K       in 2016)

Since 2016

Property valuation down £150K
(added £100K, disposed of £220K, revalued down £37K)
Paid off £160K of loans

I am not an acountant.

But, looking at Patisse Victoire, neither are a lot of accoutants.....

The notbale details that stuck out was the company -actually limited liability partnership - was only created in 2009.

Lists 4.5m of investment properties as an asset.

Then you gave 4m of loans and other debts due to members.

AS I read this, the loans are not owned by the LLP. Then youd see a cahrge held agains tthe compnay.

Then youve 600k f income - basically HB benefit.

Now, ~100 houses a 4m is ~40k/house.

The valkaution of the property is junk - these houses are only worth what someone will pay. No more IO BTL means these are worth a lot less - these are rough **** 20k/houses.

I would guess the houses are actually worth half wha tthey paid for them - theres an actual real world loss of ~2m.

The nthere's where the loans are held. They most be owned by the partners i.e. individually.

https://www.wealthprotectionreport.co.uk/public/What-is-an-LLP-and-what-tax-advantages-does-it-have.cfm

Skimmingthis, they are goign to be hammered by S24.

 

 

 

[Tes Tickle]

I saw this rubbish on Breakfast.  The entire basis of her argument was that people have to wait a month to get their first payment, but they can get an emergency payment.  The problem is that, as she admitted, they spend this emergency money on themselves, not on paying rent.  Then, when the first month's payment arrives, the emergency payment is deducted so they're skint again.

It all sounds a completely normal situation for anyone who's on a low income, exactly the sort of troubles that low earning working people have, and why landlords are wary of people on low incomes.  What has changed is that the landlords of tenants do not get risk-free direct payments any more, they have to deal with hard-up people like the landlords of honest poor working people have to.  The VIP poor don't exist any more, people are now responsible for their own budgeting and actions so are on a level playing field along with everyone else.

Landlords used to be wary of letting to people on benefits, but in recent years it's become so secure that they've been actively targeting freeloaders to the exclusion of working people.  This has also led to rents rising, because it distorts the rental market - those who are working but poor are seen as riskier so have to pay more or may end up homeless due to their exclusion by benefits VIPs.

I just hope the government have the nerve to not back down in the face of the BBC's obviously political campaigning about it all.

[spyguy]

38 minutes ago, Tes Tickle said:

I saw this rubbish on Breakfast.  The entire basis of her argument was that people have to wait a month to get their first payment, but they can get an emergency payment.  The problem is that, as she admitted, they spend this emergency money on themselves, not on paying rent.  Then, when the first month's payment arrives, the emergency payment is deducted so they're skint again.

It all sounds a completely normal situation for anyone who's on a low income, exactly the sort of troubles that low earning working people have, and why landlords are wary of people on low incomes.  What has changed is that the landlords of tenants do not get risk-free direct payments any more, they have to deal with hard-up people like the landlords of honest poor working people have to.  The VIP poor don't exist any more, people are now responsible for their own budgeting and actions so are on a level playing field along with everyone else.

Landlords used to be wary of letting to people on benefits, but in recent years it's become so secure that they've been actively targeting freeloaders to the exclusion of working people.  This has also led to rents rising, because it distorts the rental market - those who are working but poor are seen as riskier so have to pay more or may end up homeless due to their exclusion by benefits VIPs.

I just hope the government have the nerve to not back down in the face of the BBC's obviously political campaigning about it all.

Her problem is that her entire business is built on milking UK benefits.

An her business model/debt is so reigid that it does not allow for any changes.

 

[Captain Kirk]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

I am not an acountant.

But, looking at Patisse Victoire, neither are a lot of accoutants.....

The notbale details that stuck out was the company -actually limited liability partnership - was only created in 2009.

Lists 4.5m of investment properties as an asset.

Then you gave 4m of loans and other debts due to members.

AS I read this, the loans are not owned by the LLP. Then youd see a cahrge held agains tthe compnay.

Then youve 600k f income - basically HB benefit.

Now, ~100 houses a 4m is ~40k/house.

The valkaution of the property is junk - these houses are only worth what someone will pay. No more IO BTL means these are worth a lot less - these are rough **** 20k/houses.

I would guess the houses are actually worth half wha tthey paid for them - theres an actual real world loss of ~2m.

The nthere's where the loans are held. They most be owned by the partners i.e. individually.

https://www.wealthprotectionreport.co.uk/public/What-is-an-LLP-and-what-tax-advantages-does-it-have.cfm

Skimmingthis, they are goign to be hammered by S24.

Yes, I'm no accountant also and did google "loans and other debts due to members" and thought it was probably just an accounting thing. We don't have the full accounts but with tax and social security owed at £3K at year end, and £2K in 2016, it doesn't look like there is a lot of margin in it which implies they are currently offsetting interest payments. If this is the case, they will get hammered by S24 as you say.

[spyguy]

58 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

Yes, I'm no accountant also and did google "loans and other debts due to members" and thought it was probably just an accounting thing. We don't have the full accounts but with tax and social security owed at £3K at year end, and £2K in 2016, it doesn't look like there is a lot of margin in it which implies they are currently offsetting interest payments. If this is the case, they will get hammered by S24 as you say.

Look on the bright side - 300k of that HB income will find its way back to UKGOV....